The English Law Courts.
69
abling charter or statutory rights, the Queen 89), the Supreme Court of the Straits Settle in Council — i.e., for this purpose the ments refused leave to appeal to the Queen Privy Council— may give special leave to in Council, on the ground that it did not appeal (a) in civil cases of substantial, possess the power to grant it. In each of general, or constitutional importance, and these cases special leave was given. On (b) in criminal cases where it is shown that the other hand, such leave was refused in by a disregard of the forms of legal process Prince v. Gagnon (1883, L. R. 8 App. Cas. or by some violation of the principles of 102), in which only a sum of about £1000 natural justice, substantial and grave injustice was involved, and no grave point of law or of has been done to the public interest carry appellant. Such ing with it any after leave may be granted con-sequences de even although the pended on the de constitution of the cision, and in ex parte possession or depend Kensington ( 8 Jurisp. ency where the case N. S. m1), where a is tried contains no claim was resisted, provision whatever not on its merits, but for any appeal being on the ground of a brought. A few in mere formal defect stances of this spe of procedure on the cial leave jurisdiction part of claimant. may be of interest. These were all civil The High Court of cases. Criminal Judicature for the cases stand on a Northwest Provinces somewhat different of India ordered an footing. It was at infant to be taken one time (Reg. v. from the custody of Eduljee Byramjee, her mother, a Mo 276) said that " no hammedan, on the appeal lies in cases grounds that the mi of felony to the nor's deceased father Queen in Council had been a professed from any of the do Christian, and that minions of the Crown SIR GEORGE JESSEL. the mother, who (as of Great Britain the Court held) was living in adultery, was which are governed by the law of Eng land." This doctrine may now be con inducing her daughter to adopt the Moham But the Privy medan faith and habits {re Skinner, 1870 L. sidered as overruled. R. 3 P. C. 451). Again, in The Speaker of Council is by no means ready to give the Legislative Assembly of Victoria v. Glass, special leave in criminal cases lightly. (1871 L. R. 3, P. C. 561), a question was The circumstances under which it will enter raised involving the right of the Legislature tain criminal appeals are well stated by Sir of Victoria to commit for contempt 4 and J. T. Coleridge in The Attorney-General for breach of the privilege of that assembly New South Wales v. Bcrtrand ( 1867 L. R. 1 P. C. at p. 530): "Any application to under the general warrant of the speaker. Lastly, in Neo v. Neo (1873 L. R. 5 P. C. be allowed to appeal in a criminal case
